Not In Memoriam, But In Defense – Southern Reaction Against the Modern World

Main menu

Post navigation

The Necessity of Southern Reaction

The most likely way to kill a tradition is to over-formalize it, which is to carry it on in the same way after everyone has ceased to defer to it. The way to revive it is to show that it has grown out of and is still related to our most cherished values. But this requires radical insight and the stripping away of many things which are mere accretions.
Richard M. Weaver

Southern Reaction as an intellectual tradition is not new. In 1863 George Fitzhugh proclaimed, “We begin a great conservative reaction. We attempt to roll back the Reformation in its political phases.” In 1897 R.L. Dabney wrote, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” In 1929 Donald Davidson and Allen Tate discussed the need for an “academy of Southern positive reactionaries.” In 1989, M.E. Bradford wrote “Reaction is a necessary term in the intellectual context we inhabit in the twentieth century because merely to conserve is sometimes to perpetuate what is outrageous.”

Nor has Southern Reaction been particularly successful, the above being defeated in succession by the adherents of Lincoln, FDR, and Buckley in battles physical and political (though never intellectual). Today it may be fairly argued that Southern Reaction has no champion, the various modern entities which owe some fealty to the tradition seemingly unwilling to commit to the most un-liberal aspects of it. This is a shame which must be rectified.

If Southern Reaction is at its nadir, it is happening at the worst possible time. Not only are many of its dire predictions for free/industrial/multicultural society finally coming true, but there appears to be building a large-scale dissent from liberal and leftist government all across the Occident. The European New Right, Neoreaction, and the Alt-Right are already making waves and all indications are they are still in their infancy. Quite suddenly the very exporters of the kind of leftism that the Southern Right has fought against, alone, for so long are beginning to experience a rising tide of rightist dissension. This is an opportunity the proportions of which Fitzhugh, Tate, and Weaver could’ve only dreamt of.

What shall be done with this opportunity? The tradition must be revived.

Properly conceived, Southern Reaction is applied reaction. It takes a set of ideas, both from our homegrown rightists and the greater rightist tradition, and applies them to a distinct place and time. This is the natural next step for the current “dark enlightenment” renaissance. Different people have different problems which require different answers. Currently there exists a bunch of semi-coherent groups of rightists, like (non-neo)reactionaries, trad Christians, and ethnonationalists. Sooner or later the members of these groups will have to attach to a specific ethnocultural thede, and its on-the-ground reality, if they ever want to make progress towards getting things done. That is the goal of Southern Reaction. It is not separate from these groups, but it takes those groups’ ideas (or at least whichever ideas that actual Southerners hold) and applies them to the modern Southern context.

NRx has patchwork; the European New Right has identitarianism; the Alt-Right has ethnocentrism. Whatever it is called, the future of the Right is that different thedes splinter and take care of themselves. The South must organically rebuild its own Rightist element. To borrow the words of Allen Tate we must create a reactionary situation “interior to the South.” This follows cleanly once universalism is rejected (including the white kind) and the South is admitted as distinct, either genetically or culturally or both. A Southern Right is the only element conceivable that can use Southern resources to solve Southern problems for the highest benefit of Southerners. Otherwise these problems will be outsourced, to our detriment.

Two organizations currently exist on the Southern Right: the League of the South and the Abbeville Institute. If any progeny of the Southern Rightist tradition exist, they are it. As much as I am unwilling to critize those who have built legitimate organizations for the furtherance of a cause I very much identify with, both are flawed in significant ways. The League of the South seems to forsake or ignore the intellectual vein of the Southern Rightist tradition in favor of activism and therefore dilutes the message as much as possible. It can be summed up in one word- secede. The LoS seems determined to work from within the system, as opposed to building alternative power structures. So far I just haven’t seen anything of substance from LoS, though I would love to. Perhaps the emergence of the Alt-Right will help the LoS grow beyond tiny street corner protests, but if so I have seen little indication the energy will be directed in a very positive direction.

The Abbeville Institute errs in the opposite direction. Scholarly and intelligent, it is reluctant to appear as extremist and thus retains some of the pillars of the liberal worldview. Perhaps more accurately it seeks to justify the South from within the liberal worldview. It is explicitly oriented towards the past, analyzing the sins of Lincoln and genius of Jefferson over and over again. Its purpose is to “critically explore what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition.” Unfortunately, in focusing all efforts towards doing so it is failing to advance it.

It is true, heretofore Abbeville and the LoS had little choice but to pay some lipservice to leftist hegemony. When there is no true rightist counterculture, when one is alone in the wilderness, one makes concessions to stay viable. What we have lately however is the appearance of that counterculture, and the Southern Right must be nimble in order to capitalize on it. Hopefully, Abbeville and the League will adjust accordingly. If they don’t, others must assume the mantle.

From the perspective of the international Right, Southern Reaction is a positive development because decentralization is a good thing. When Truth is the goal diversity of viewpoint is a benefit. The South presents a unique context which adds to the greater discussion. This context produced a nuanced and fairly advanced rightist tradition of its own which as far as I have seen is still largely unexplored even in intellectual rightist circles. Like an old garden, it is a bit overgrown and and requires some pruning here and some tending there, but it is a rich soil and still capable of bearing some fruit.

30 thoughts on “The Necessity of Southern Reaction”

Excellent article, sir. Regarding the LoS and Abbeville, my thinking is that rather than looking at what they are doing and concluding that they are seriously flawed, they are specializing in different aspects. I don’t know that it is feasible to have an all-encompassing organization at this point. Later, perhaps, but we’re not there yet. A good example may be the IRA – they had a political arm and a militant arm – neither of which had any formal ties to the other.

If I were to bet on which of the two will be of the greatest long-term help to us, Abbeville Institute would be my clear choice. It would take only minor changes for them to turn from a focus on the past to also include the future. Abbeville has built a solid foundation of respectability, and that is absolutely necessary for building a long-term movement. The LoS started out right with a focus on “hedge schools” and doing the long hard work of influencing the culture, but soon left the highway and continues to bounce around through the weeds. It will continue to attract only the small subset of Southern activists that it now has. In an effort to grow quickly rather than broadly, they have carved out a niche that has no room for broader appeal. They have a leadership problem, and I see no path for the LoS to rebuild into what it could have been.

That broader appeal is also known as community support. We MUST show people that we are not just “rebel flag wavers”, but rather folks who know how to build a society where they can raise their families in peace and prosperity. That is what it’s going to take. I’ll repeat the mantra that I shout at every opportunity – Nothing Changes Until The Culture Changes. We must grow deep roots before growing branches, else the first strong wind that comes along will sweep us away. That takes time and hard work.

Thank you sir for your thoughtful comment. I agree that it is not yet feasible to have an all-encompassing organization. I think however that our very conception of what sort of organization is necessary for the advancement of our cause may need to be corrected.

I think that for us – or any true Rightists – popular support is inevitably a chimera. Our ideas are hard because they are true, and “the people” will never voluntarily choose the hard path. Cthulhu swims left (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html) in large part because it is the path of least resistance. Failure to apply this maxim negatively affects both LoS and Abbeville; the former because “activist” tactics as practiced by the Right are doomed to fail (or more often, push the organization using activism Left), and the latter by their veil of respectability. The current sociopolitical environment is so foul, so corrupt to the core, that to be respectable is more of an obstacle than an asset.

This is exemplified by Abbeville’s avoidance of the race issue, even though it is a question always near the fore in the South and its history. In order to retain respectability, Abbeville must avoid the question or when forced pay homage to the inherently liberal idea of racial egalitarianism. Not to mention that any organization with even of hint of Rightism will never, ever, be considered respectable by the liberal zeitgeist. Chasing popular respectability is ultimately a conservative rather than a reactionary strategy and therefore bound to fail.

In my humble opinion, Davidson and Tate largely had the right strategy in mind in the years leading up to I’ll Take My Stand. Davidson urged the creation of “a small, coherent, highly selected group” to champion the South. In response Tate “outlined a strategic program designed to organize a disciplined and militant ‘academy of Southern positive reactionaries’ who would create ‘an intellectual situation interior to the South’.” Eventually the members of the academy “would compose ‘a philosophical constitution’ in which they would articulate a ‘complete social, philosophical, literary, economic, and religious system,’ in other words, a worldview.” (Quotes from The Unregenerate South by Malvasi) Weaver’s idea of “cultural doctors” seems to echo something like this as well.

I think Tate’s idea, on a more limited scale, still applies today because it is designed to do two things. One, attract highly competent, free-thinking, and intelligent people, the kind with resources and the ability to influence events; and two, to act as an alternative power structure to the dominant Left/liberal one, and thus be as self-sufficient as possible. I see shades of this from Abbeville but shades only. I can only hope that it transitions from conservative to truly reactionary, divorcing totally from the liberal spirit and taking up a spirited attack instead of a defense.

I’d like to stress that I consider Abbeville and LoS both as positive assets for us and my appreciation for the men that built and maintain them is high indeed. I offer my criticism in the humblest possible spirit, knowing that I am just some guy with a blog, and with a sincere desire to see both organizations succeed as much as possible.

I pretty much agree with your points sir, only that timing is everything too. We look at the falling and flailing American ‘Republic’ (a Jacobin elite ruling behind the facade of Mobocracy) , and see people putting their hopes on Trump being elected President. One way or another, they will be disappointed, and it will be clear then to many that the numbers are against White, Christian, heterosexual males having any political power in today’s society. This, despite the fact that we are the ones keeping the lights on and defending this society in general. Trump can’t change that, and may not even intend to. As a Southerner, a Reactionary, and believer in a society governed by a Monarchial/Aristocratic class, and an Orthodox Christian, I see that breaking away the South from all this mess, is what will save our people eventually.

I have read your articles with great interest and you have influenced my thinking significantly over the past few months, as I struggle with the implications of my being a ‘Southern Reactionary’. It’s going to be a hard road to take, but we will find it. You’re right; the masses aren’t going to change things, but be changed by them. I’m glad you’re back writing articles, I thank you.

I would like to hear thoughts on size of breaking away. One of the most basic problems that we have in America today is that this country (not “nation” but “country”) has grown far too large to govern effectively, regardless of what form of government is in use. While it is clear to me that the best, and perhaps only, option for a future for my grandchildren is for a Southern nation, I don’t want to see us making the same mistakes that doomed the united States. Many Southern nationalists (or whatever term is being used) think and talk in terms of simply carving out something from the original Confederate States. While that is a convenient way to refer to The South, I see little advantage in that in the long term.

What I see as a workable solution is a collection of city-states organized and governed in a wide variety of formats so that people would truly have the freedom to live under whatever system they want to live under. “One size fits all” government means “one size fits none.” Want to live in a libertarian/libertine society? Fine. Find a city-state that is organized that way. Prefer a patriarchal monarchy-aristocracy that provides a secure and orderly society in which to raise your family? Great. We’ve got that too. Looking for that leftist fantasy of communism? You might find one of those – but you’d better hurry before it self-destructs as they always do.

Obviously, I am not addressing the need for wide-scale cooperation in matters such as common defense against external threats, but let’s first consider the smaller scale issues.

So again, my question – what are your thoughts on governable size and offering people real choice in the form of government and the type of society and culture in which we may one day live?

The problem with a city-state or similar small grouping is that they quickly fall into infighting and being absorbed by larger more powerful groupings outside. As a Southerner, I want nothing less than the whole South eventually restored as one great polity.

Hi there, what do you think of black separatism? I believe that blacks and whites better do so, because two peoples with a history of conflicts and power over another will be very unlikely to live peacefully next to each other. It should be done to protect white people at least.

Black separatism is part of what I had in mind in the system I described in the second paragraph (above post). While some think in terms of “send them back to Africa”, just a bit of thinking that through will demonstrate that it’s not a workable solution if we are to retain our culture as truly civilized Christian men. Removing all the artificial barriers to self-segregation is all it would take, and people will do what comes naturally – they will gather with their own people. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. I bear no ill will against blacks who don’t interfere with my life. I truly wish them well – just not in my land.

Not everyone will want to do that, of course, which is why there needs to be a wide variety of city-states. There will always be the race mixers who will continue beating their head against a wall trying to make their dreams of diversity and multi-cultural paradise come to pass. Let them. That’s what walls and fences are for.

You can give dual citizenship to mixed race people and their children, on the condition that they must assimilate. If they don’t, then they are out. Eventually the mixed blooded people will know which race suits them better.

We are dancing around the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’, too modern ourselves to think of what most Southern thinkers of the pre-War of Northern Aggression era believed in, in Slavery. I mean, let’s read George Fitzhugh….

Nobody wishes to be a servant themselves, truly, but because of sin and other factors, there are men and women who are better suited in life to have their labor owned by another human being, for their mutual betterment in a hierarchical society. The Liberal at least is right in having a vestige of a paternalistic instinct….

I have no problem with any human being as such, but things are out of their natural order, and the average person who might be a good servant in more sane age is not to blame for it at all. Give them the housing and free care and food and clothing, but make them work for this safety and security.

We have to get back to that pre-modern mindset, the mindset of most of human history and natural experience.

If someone wants to voluntarily and of their own free will, with full knowledge and understanding of what they are doing, enter into a long term contract, exchanging their labor for room and board and other care during that time, I don’t know that I could oppose that. On the other hand, I would want nothing to do with anything like that myself. Anyone who has worked around low-skill employees already has a pretty good idea of how that’s going to turn out, and it’s not good. They are about as motivated as welfare recipients are – anything more than the absolute minimum requirement, and it’s not going to get done. Offer a job, pay what it is worth, and if the employee is not doing an acceptable job, then he’s fired. Keep in mind that slavery was a life-time commitment. A slave too old to work did not get sent to a scrap yard like a worn out machine – they were cared for until they died. Same with sick and disabled slaves. Why anyone would want to sign up for that rather than simply paying a fair wage is beyond me.

It still puzzles me that slavery lasted as long as it did. True, it was already well on its way out by the time Lincoln (spit) invaded The South, but it was a bad deal for everyone concerned.

(Disclosure – My ancestors owned slaves. They bought and sold slaves. I know some of the slaves’ names and have a photo of the son of one of the family slaves working for my grandfather long after the war. In our family cemetery, there are slave graves. Everything that I have learned tells me that while slavery was a really bad idea, it did have some mutual benefits and the abuses were actually quite rare; one does not “damage” a major “investment.” It was then, and still is, a really bad idea for all concerned.)

Here is an idea I have been thinking about for quite a while. What if you Southrons start to call yourselves ‘Dixonians’, and your future nation ‘Dixonia’? This sounds better than ‘Southrons’ in my opinion. ‘Southron’ still implies that you are the Southern part of the US, and I don’t like the idea of having a name that is connected to my enemy.

Tradition plays a big role in what we’re discussing, and the South is what our ancestors fought for (which, by the way, never officially surrendered – only the Confederate Army surrendered. The civilian government merely dispersed, so technically, the CSA still exists.)

Secondly, simplicity is an important factor in any type of cultural shift, and changing names would only complicate the message.

With all that said, carving out a newly-formed Confederate States of America is not workable either, since it would suffer from the same too-big-to-govern problem that the united States suffers from.

I have not found any proposed solution that works as well as the city-state system that I described above. It is the only one that avoids the “one size fits all” problem. While an ethno-state would, in theory, be progress in that direction, we need to keep in mind that it was Whites who put Obama in office. Twice. Simply dividing by race is far too diverse – not just within regions, but within states, and even within counties. I’m confident that I’m not the only one here who knows some Blacks who I would much rather have as friends and neighbors than some Whites, so there has to be more to it than that. While race, and the culture that generally goes with it, is a big factor, there are other factors that are even more powerful. The only way to adequately address those differences is a system where one can freely choose what kind of system to live in and raise a family in. Those city-states would, of course, determine the requirements to live there and effective border control would be important. Also important would be agreements allowing for passage through so that families could move to the city-state that suits their needs.

Interesting discussion. I’m afraid that this sort of thinking will become not just an academic exercise, but advanced planning as our world rapidly crumbles around us. We can either plan for and influence the direction that a new world takes, or we can be swept along and settle for whatever happens. Think about it for a moment – if the current leadership system crumbles, then exactly who is going to make those decisions? If not those of us who care and think about it, then who? As bad as things are now, the chances are great that whatever comes next will be far worse – at least for quite a while – so it isn’t something to look forward to, but to at least give serious consideration to.

‘While an ethno-state would, in theory, be progress in that direction, we need to keep in mind that it was Whites who put Obama in office. Twice. Simply dividing by race is far too diverse – not just within regions, but within states, and even within counties. I’m confident that I’m not the only one here who knows some Blacks who I would much rather have as friends and neighbors than some Whites, so there has to be more to it than that.’

I think that smart and good natured people of any race will generally go along with each other. Having said that, I still wonder if a new South / Dixonia can afford to have some black citizens. There is no guarantee that black people can adhere to white people’s values and culture, we have had about 300 years as proof of that now. This is not to say that I hate black people, it just means that black people and white people are very different, and their differences are not wholly good or wholly bad.

I think the problem here is looking at too-large an area, all under the same form of government. My contention is that:
1) Most countries are simply too large to effectively govern.
2) A “one size fits all” system denies people the freedom to live their lives as they wish.

As much as we may be convinced that what we propose is THE best solution, the fact is that relatively few will agree with us. I would never claim the right to force others into the same system that I would find ideal – that would guarantee the kind of strife that destroys nations. The answer is a collection of city-states that brings the free market to government, and let them stand or fall on their own merit.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a pure White ethno-state, just as I see nothing wrong with having a pure Black ethno-state. If, however, that is the primary (or even the sole) criteria for citizenship, then I see its chance for success as quite uncertain. Race, and the culture that is linked to it, is important; however there are other criteria that are more important. We cannot lose sight of that.

One of the chief criteria for any kind of city-state (I’m stretching that far beyond its strict definition because I can’t think of a more accurate word at the moment) is that it must be capable of living in peace with other city-states. Another way to put it is that you wouldn’t want to admit Nebraska into the union if their Constitution called for the conquest of all who do not agree with their beliefs.

Louis Farrakhan is the head of Nation of Islam, and jihad is one of the basic tenants of Islam. That irrevocably removes them or any other Islamic group from consideration for any kind of cooperation. By the way, I would also include in that any White group that advocated the violent conquest of Blacks or any other group purely based on who they are. Good walls make good neighbors, and peaceful coexistence with other city-states is the goal. We don’t have to like or agree with or want to associate with other groups; however, we do have to live peaceably with them, deal with them honorably, and always retain our Occidental culture of civility and honor.

Excellent article, sir. He makes a logical proposal, and presents it in a clear and eloquent manner. I strongly suspect that he and I would hit it off quite well. One thing that is lacking in much discussion today is a respect for the views and interests of others. He demonstrates that he understands and respects the differences between our races/cultures and wants to preserve rather than destroy what makes us unique. Just as important, he is also a staunch defender of his own people and is taking a stand for the betterment of the Black race. I wish him all the best, and I’ll be further studying his proposals so that I can improve the proposed city-state model that I’ve been working on. Thank you for passing that link along. This man is definitely someone to watch and learn from; I’ve added his blog to my regular reading.

I am very pleased to have stumbled upon your blog. I have the same very dreams as those of you that have discussed previously. Dixonia and Dixonians I think are phenominal descriptions of a new city-state. I like the idea of completely separating from any current association, more unique and has the zeal and appeal to bring people in. We are certainly at a crossroads now, and at a time where I try to explain to people not to have the need to please the current social circles or liberal society, but seize the opportunity to carve out something special completely separate from the status-quo

It is no secret that Southern Culture has been purged, purposefully, and the reason is because it is and especially WAS more superior, and jealous people attack something they can’t be, certainly when they see the superior society content without any intervention. I am not speaking about race, just culture in general. The people as a whole. Now it’s attacked, scattered, and have foreigners from the north who move down to the lovely region, but do not assimilate. I feel I am speaking words that anyone on this page already is aware of, so…

What is stopping us? Let’s stop dreaming and start organizing. Level headed leaders, judged by character not by credentials. Let us lay the footwork for Dixonia, a peaceful sub-region, or distinct region, however it plays out, with like minded people that would die for their beliefs. Much more talk and in depth planning could be done as soon as tonight. Email me @ southerngent26@outlook.com. Or we could further generalize our ideas on this forum, either way, as long as reaction is taken, our Reactionary Dixonia is one step closer to becoming a reality.

Welcome to the discussion, Mr. Lee.
While I would welcome such a system as much as others here, I simply don’t see a path from “here” to “there” without going through a complete collapse/reset of the current system. The forces that would be arrayed against it could not be overcome. AFTER a reset, though, is another story.

The best hope I see is a collection of city-states, each appealing to a particular type of person. There are far too many incompatible agendas now for anything else to work. Consider our current election campaigns: the country is so deeply and starkly divided that there simply is no room for compromise. We have two completely incompatible viewpoints at war with each other, each believing that if the other side wins this election, then it will be the end of America as we know it. Both are correct.

If we are starting off with a relatively clean slate, then natural leaders will rise up. The successful ones will, in essence, say, “This is my vision for the future. If you like what you see – and we like what we see in you – then you’re welcome to join us. This is not a democracy, and if you don’t like that, now is the time to leave.” In such a system, the city-states that meet the needs of those within its borders will thrive, while those that don’t will be absorbed into more successful city-states. There will, of course, be problems and perhaps even violent problems, but that’s the nature of man.

You might enjoy seeing some of the posts on my Southern Agrarian blogs (southernagrarian(dot)com focuses on the practical aspects of growing your own food, etc., while southernagrarian(dot)org focuses on more philosophical and political matters of Southern Agrarianism).

What do you mean by reset? I am the type of person who sees anything as being possible as long as the will is as strong as the mission. If you appeal a Dixonia, for namesake, then you attract like minded self reliant families and people. Of course for something of the sort to be set up there would need to be funding, but starting small is starting SOMEWHERE. A good example is the American Redoubt in the Mountain west. We get our people in politics and through the natural course of righteousness, hard work, self reliance and community support, it would flourish. Obviously I make it sound too simple, but I prefer being a contrarian to the impossible.

By “reset” I mean that, for all practical purposes, the USA ceases to exist as a functioning country, and the alternative to forming city-states is anarchy. Anarchy is the worst option possible for a society to live under. When faced with that possibility, men will organize and form some semblance of order, and if successful, it will progress in an organic manner into a formal system of government. That is how it has happened all throughout history.

Perhaps my outlook comes from seeing how politics works from the inside. I have, for the past 21 years, earned a comfortable living with political candidates, PACs, and lobbyists as my customers. Before that, I was deeply involved as a candidate, campaign treasurer, campaign staffer, speech writer, and various other positions in “the system”. I know how it works and how those involved think. I say that to explain my position – not to discourage you and others. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong, and I hope you are the one to do it.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

We can influence our family, our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers, those in our church. That is where we start, and if our ideas are sound, then it spreads from there. There are no quick-fix solutions. That is why the Reagan Revolution is now just a footnote in history. Nothing changes until the culture changes. The Reagan Revolution was pushed through by a small core of dedicated men who gave it their all, and they made a difference. The problem was that the long hard work of first changing the culture didn’t happen. Without that to support a change, it’s just a temporary flash in the pan. Lots of fireworks, but when the show is over, everyone goes home and nothing changes.

You could look at my statements as “just some old guy who has lost his zeal”. The fact is that those years have shown me that these are cultural changes that we’re talking about. Cultural change takes time and a lot of work and dedication, but it is an absolute requirement if we hope to restore our great Southern culture. Referring back to the prayer I quoted above – I cannot change the mass media or the government or the public school system. I can, however, make sure that my own family has those values and beliefs instilled in them. My five grandchildren are all being home schooled, and that is the only way that we’re going to get the next generation back on track. If enough people care enough about this to do the same, then change will happen. Are we starting with “the courage to change the things I can” by building strong Southern families (our own and those we influence)? If not, it’s just talk and pretend.

It’s fine to believe that “anything as being possible as long as the will is as strong as the mission”, but don’t forget about needing the “wisdom to know the difference.”

You secessionists are fooling yourselves. The Confederates lost because they thought they could just walk away. You cannot walk away from tyrants. The confederates were too nice and assumed they were dealing with gentlemen. They thought wrong. They just gave Lincoln the time he needed to build an army and invade them. They are no “Yankees”. Never were. Those blue bellies were mostly Irishman that came to America to escape a potato famine. Lincoln Shanghaied them in NYC when they got off the boat. The North didn’t want no part of Lincoln’s War. They had draft riots everywhere. That’s why they’re bringing in dumb immigrants now. They’re trying to do the same thing again. Get dumb foreigners and force them to fight Americans. You better wise up. The Real Reason the Confederates lost was they WEREN’T REBELS. If they had taken Washington early, Lincoln and his gang would have had to retreat to New York. At that point, people would see he couldn’t keep fighting when he had to move everything North and there wasn’t any groundswell of support. The Confederates blew their chance after First Bull Run. They could have marched right in and that would have finished Lincoln. Retreating and abandoning Washington would have shown him up. You could have won if you had taken the fight to Lincoln. You’re making the SAME MISTAKE they did the last time.